94 entries from September 2011

09/30/2011

“Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle.”

Thomas Jefferson

Sometimes I get in these reflective moods. Yesterday, I started listening to a podcast that I found called “The Thomas Jefferson Hour” where a historian “plays” Thomas Jefferson, and attempts to answer the questions of an interviewer in character for part of the show, and then talks more about how he thinks Thomas Jefferson would have reacted to certain issues of today. It’s entertaining and thought provoking, whether it’s accurate or not.

I was struck by the quote above—taken from Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address. This is something that we’ve more or less come to terms with around our RSE clubhouse—that we all have the same principles in our love for liberty and a desire to get there, even while we oftentimes disagree about how to get there. And it’s o.k. for us to agree to disagree without being disagreeable. In fact, we can challenge one another’s opinion, without impugning our motives—which is (I suspect), what Jefferson was getting at.

It seems to me that today’s Jeffersonians--the larger libertarian community-- could benefit greatly by keeping Jefferson’s words in mind. In the context of the current presidential race, I suspect that Jefferson would believe it good and proper that two libertarian types are competing (along with a lot of non-libertarian types); I suspect that he would think it perfectly acceptable that Ron Paul and Gary Johnson might have a difference of opinion on how best to achieve liberty on some issues; and I suspect that he would be quite pleased that the two of them (if not all of their supporters) have intuitively taken his words to heart, and declined to attack each other. They know, perhaps, that they share the same principles, even if they disagree on some of the specific or see a different way of moving toward the end goal.

This is one of those strange election years. I support both Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. I have a favorite, but I’d be perfectly content were either of them to make the cut. The principles are the same—I have no doubt of that; the difference is stylistic, and in the means to achieve the principle.

This song is still one of my favorites. Can’t tell you why. Nostalgia’s a funny thing. What surprised me was the release date: 1979. The style of the video suggests the mid to late eighties. This was one of the first music videos and it changed the style of music. Change has to start somewhere.

Political change is much slower. Looking back, it’s difficult to pinpoint the moment when liberalism switched to conservatism. (around the time of this song?)

Is this the era when conservatism is switching to libertarianism? I don’t know, but it would be neat to think of today’s youth, when they’ve become forty or fifty-somethings, looking back at the Ron Paul Revolution and recognizing it as such. I wonder which song they’d attach to it?

Gary Numan is still going strong, btw. I can’t say I’m all that interested in his recent recordings, but some of his quotes are engaging:

"I'm not socialist, I know that. I don't believe in sharing my money."

"Every village and town in England has a bunch of thugs running around in it. The riots were the nail in the coffin."

09/29/2011

1913 may very well be the worst year in the history of this nation. In March, the insufferably headstrong Woodrow Wilson took office – an economic putz from academia with a cosmopolitan flair for trouble. The Dullard signed the Federal Reserve into existence on December 23rd of that year. Having abrogated our monetary freedom, he then set to the task of involving himself in foreign affairs, leading to the entrance of the U.S. into World War I. He would later sign both the espionage act (1917) and sedition act (1918) so he could arrest anyone who disagreed with him. All this, it seems, was necessary for his grand vision of world peace. War and oppression aside, Wilson was a very peaceful man.

The year 1913 also bore witness to the passage of two constitutional amendments: the 16th (in February) and 17th (in May). These were socialist bookends for the up-and-coming central bank, which was itself at the core of the communist ideal. 1913 was the culmination of the ongoing socialist revolution in this country, where our government would finally have the power to usher in utopia. However, even utopian promises must eventually yield to the clarity of historical perspective. The socialist playground that was the 20th century was rife with corruption, war, and lost liberties (and we’ve been luckier than many other countries in that regard).

Our economic engine is now faltering. Our wealth has been extracted and replaced with IOUs, along with a rigid central system of regulations making it impossible to generate any more wealth. In other political blocs, this has led to break-ups into smaller, autonomous countries. This could happen here as well. We do, however, have a unique ace-in-the-hole: the 17th amendment. This particular amendment has been mentioned many times on this site and for good reason. It drastically curtailed the rights of the states, who previously enjoyed representation at the federal level via the direct appointment of U.S. senators.

Judge Napolitano and Utah Senator Mike Lee discuss it here:

Rather than a sovereign break-up into distinct countries, we could step back to a more federalist system where the states regain their representation along with more power and autonomy. It would be a break-up, of sorts, to allow a more localized and closer scrutinized governance while maintaining a sense of national freedom throughout the states, which has been one of the more desirable aspects of this country.

So much talk today revolves around tweaking the central tax system or various central entitlement programs. Enough with the center, already. It has proven to be a costly and dangerously inefficient method of representative rule. It’s time to move toward a more local governance. Repeal the 17th amendment.

Here’s an interesting, brief video (at the link) where commentators discuss the economy, and the question of whether it’s time to just let it fail, so that it can begin the healing process. I especially like the baseball bat/overcorrecting analogy—make sure you don’t get hit on the head!

The argument calls for government to get out of the investment business:

The government’s rightful role in this competition is at the beginning -- and the end. We favor government support for research labs that can put hundreds, even thousands, of interesting ideas in play. Trying to pick winners in the midst of the action is ill-advised. The government can accomplish more, with less risk, by simply becoming a big, reliable customer for solar, wind and geothermal power.

A well-conceived alternative energy program could save the U.S. many hundreds of billions in the years ahead. If the Solyndra debacle gets U.S. policy pointed in the right direction, the loan-guarantee losses won’t have been totally in vain.

The problem is that government would still be using OPiuM (other people’s money) to consume products based not on subjective market inputs, but rather on political ties, popular memes, and various other political factors. Such heavy demand would cause competition to dry up as the anointed businesses crowd out their competitors.

Investing is consumption-based to begin with. Private investors pick and choose the products which interest them. So, in effect, we’re seeing government act as a consumer when it invests. Am I missing something or is this really the same old central planning idea being spun anew?

09/27/2011

"Greenhouse in A Bottle Experiment - Reconsidered" explains in very simple terms why the so-called 'greenhouse effect' is simply due to the compression of the atmosphere from gravity, and why adding 'greenhouse gases' will not warm the planet.